Re: Object-relational impedence

On Mar 10, 8:55 pm, Joe Thurbon <use..._at_thurbon.com> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> >
> > Ugh, I'm boring even myself. It's time to play some Halo.
>
> I thought it was pretty funny.
>
> And accurate.

Thanks. I should mention that I had an awesome flag capture. Most of the enemy team was occupied midfield, and they left their base empty. I sailed in, grabbed the flag, and hit the man-cannon. Midflight I hear a teammate say on the comm "We'll be waiting for you." And flying up to the drop point, I see a Warthog with driver and gunner, right there. I hop in the passenger seat with the flag and we hightail it back to our base. As we're almost there I hear the unmistakable beep-beep of an enemy lock on our vehicle; I immediately hop out just seconds before missiles destroy the 'hog and the other two guys, but I made it out in time and scored.

I play under the tag "Natural Join".

> But before you fatigue completely from the thread:
>
> Upthread, you mentioned you had gone to some length to use most strictly
> defined modern type system terminology. I don't suppose you have a cite
> for some of it? I'm clearly out of date.

http://www.amazon.com/Types-Programming-Languages-Benjamin-Pierce/dp/0262162091

Pierce seems to be the guy everyone's citing these days, at least for definitions and pithy summaries of the field.

> I tend to think of typing systems as falling somewhere on a
> four-dimensional space with the axes:
>
> Latent/Manifest
> Structural/Nominal
> Static/Dynamic
> Strong/Weak

Well, strong/weak has been deprecated pretty hard. There's this term "safe" now, to describe what C isn't. "Latent" seems to mostly be a synonym for "dynamic" now. There's also the "explicitly annotated" term, to describe what languages like C++ and Java are, and OCaml and Haskell aren't.

> I wonder just how out of date I am....

If you understand structural vs. nominal, you're way ahead of most people.

Marshall Received on Tue Mar 11 2008 - 08:04:30 CET